(1.) THIS order deals with the petition filed by the returned candidate (respondent no. 1 of the election petition)for dismissing the election petition in limine for non-compliance of the provisions contained in section 86 (1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. According to the respondent the election petition deserves to be rejected at its threshold on account of following defects of substantial character : -
(2.) SHRI R. K. Prasad, learned counsel for the returned candidate relying on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Allahabad High court and Punjab and Haryana high Court has vehemently argued that the election petition suffers from a number of infirmities hence can not proceed and should be dismissed summarily. It is to be stated that the election of the returned candidate has been challenged on the basis of averments made in paragraphs 8 to 21 of the election petition. The allegation relates to irregularities committed during counting of the ballot papers. If the facts alleged in the election petition are accepted the election petitioner shall be entitled to a declaration the election of the respondent void. Although all the material facts have been stated in the petition still the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the petition lacks material particulars, hence there is non-compliance of Section 83 (1) of the Act. In this connection the learned counsel relies on a decision of Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1988 All 210 (Ram Singh v. Kazi Mohiud-din) which decision no doubt to some extent supports the contention of the learned counsel for the returned candidate. In this case learned Single Judge of the Allahabad high Court expunged certain paragraphs of the election petition and then held the election petitioner had no cause of action to pursue the petition. This decision was followed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in ram Sarup v. Peer Chand (AIR 1993 P and H 180 ). The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere vague allegation in the petition does not constitute cause of action far trying the petition. However, Allahabad High court's view can not be accepted in view of direct decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1201. In view of this decision I am unable to place any reliance on the said decisions. After going through the election petition I am satisfied that there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel that material facts have not been disclosed in the electior petition. It may be stated that most of the decisions cited by Shri Prasad relate to cases where the election was challenged on the ground of use of corrupt practice. It is; not the case here. On a bare reading of section 83 (1) of the Representation of peoples Act it is obvious that the election petition is required to set forth full particulars where corrupt practice is alleged against the returned candidate. In other cases concise statement of the material facts is sufficient. The first ground urged on behalf of returned candidate has no force and it is accordingly held that the election petition is not liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 83 (1) (c) of the Act.
(3.) SHRI Prasad next submitted that all the persons who had filed nomination papers have not been impleaded in the election petition and hence election petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. This contention is misconceived. Section 82 of the Act provides that election petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition all the contesting candidates and where the petitioner also claims a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, the election petitioner has impleaded all the contesting candidates. Shri Prasad submitted that all the 46 persons who had filed nomination papers should have been impleaded. This argument is contrary to Section 82 of the act. The decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 837 cited by Shri Prasad is not applicable here because there is no allegation of corrupt practice against any candidate in the instant case.